It is not proved that active property was in excess of the negative property, and that it was in excess of the debt.

The auction procedure was conducted by the plaintiff as the bidding execution agency, and it is difficult to regard the minimum bid price at the time as the market price of each land as the purchase price of each land. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that active property exceeds the small property claimed by the plaintiff, and that there was no other excess of the debt.

2011. Revocation of Fraudulent Act

XX Stock Company

O Co., Ltd. and one other

December 16, 2011

January 13, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s Debtor Rehabilitation Debtor Company (“Defendant”) revoked the assignment of claims related to the national tax refund claim in April 21, 2010 between 2010 and Nonparty O Co., Ltd., the administrator AA, the former BB’s lawsuit, and paid to the Plaintiff 1,479,00,000 won in the amount of the Defendant’s Debtor Rehabilitation Obligor Company (“Defendant”)’s custodian AA, the formerB’s lawsuit, and the formerB’s lawsuit, and the Defendant Republic paid 5% amount per annum from the day following the date of the instant judgment regarding each of the above amounts to KRW 820,00,000,000 in the amount of the instant case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 9, 2007, the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "OO") newly built and sold 530 units of the housing construction project (hereinafter referred to as the "the instant apartment project") on the land of Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, O 000-0 and 00 units after obtaining approval of the project plan from the Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, the Plaintiff conducted the housing sales guarantee (hereinafter referred to as the "sale guarantee of this case") with the OO as the principal debtor on December 4, 2007, and the above apartment as the creditor of the prospective occupants.

B. On October 1, 2009, the Plaintiff, a contractor of the instant project, completed the performance of the instant apartment sales contract amounting to KRW 138,86,491,744 on February 3, 2010, when the guarantee accident occurred due to the bankruptcy of the Defendant Rehabilitation Debtor Co., Ltd., Ltd., the custodian of the Defendant Rehabilitation Debtor Co., Ltd. and the formerB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant XX”).

C. On April 14, 2010, theO filed a claim for rectification of tax refund equivalent to approximately KRW 3.3 billion with Defendant Republic of Korea due to the termination of the sale of the instant apartment on April 14, 2010, and on April 21, 2010, theO transferred the above refund claim to Defendant XX (hereinafter “instant assignment”).

D. Defendant Republic of Korea determined the refund amount of KRW 1,479,00,000 on June 22, 2010 as the refund amount, and paid KRW 1,479,000,000 after deducting the amount of national tax in XX 820,000,000 from Defendant XX, the transferee of the above refund amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1 and 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff completed the refund performance under the instant apartment sale guarantee to the seller of apartment buildings. The Plaintiff is a creditor holding the claim amounting to KRW 138,866,41,744 and the fine for negligenceing to KRW 6,238,00,000. The Plaintiff, as the debtor, had only 10,006,000 and 32 parcels of land (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) with active property as of April 14, 2010, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above debt amounting to KRW 10,86,491,74 with KRW 6,238,00,00 and KRW 145,00 with KRW 0,00,00,000 to the Plaintiff for reasons that it would be the debtor’s debt amounting to KRW 10,000 and KRW 4,05,000,000 with Defendant’s debt amount owed to the Plaintiff at the time of its transfer.

(2) In order to preserve the claim against O, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment against the claim for refund from the Defendant Republic of Korea, and the written decision of provisional attachment (Seoul District Court 2010Kadan30510) was served on the Defendant Republic of Korea on April 27, 2010, and the Defendant Republic of Korea also knew that the assignment of the claim of this case constitutes a fraudulent act. However, the Defendant Republic of Korea has appropriated the amount of national tax in the above refund payment for the amount of national tax in XX, thereby constituting a bad faith purchaser. Accordingly, the Defendant Republic of Korea is obliged to pay KRW 820,000,000 calculated by deducting the Plaintiff from the amount of national tax in arrears from the amount of national tax in return.

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

(1) It is difficult to recognize the amount of preserved claims asserted by the Plaintiff. On April 21, 2010, the market price of each land of this case, which is an O’s active property, is not less than the above amount, in light of the fact that the first lowest bid price per time during the auction procedure for the land where three parcels were excluded from each land of this case, was 245,829,16,000, the said amount should be deemed to be more than the above amount. In addition, there was a deposit claim of KRW 5,715,486,835, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the OO was in excess of its liability as of April 21, 2010

(2) It cannot be said that the Defendant Republic of Korea recognized that the assignment of claims in this case was a fraudulent act on the ground that the Plaintiff’s written decision of provisional seizure against theO was served on the Defendant Republic of Korea.

C. Determination

In light of the purport of Gap's statement and the whole argument, Eul's first lowest bidding price was 245,829,166,000 won in the auction procedure for each of the lands of this case, and the above auction procedure was conducted by the plaintiff as bidding execution agency, and the first bidding price was enforced on February 3, 2010. It is reasonable to deem that the market price of each of the lands of this case was 245,829,16,000 won around April 21, 2010. The plaintiff's assertion that the minimum bidding price of each of the lands of this case was 245,829,16,000 won as of April 30, 201 (the bidding price after several biddings was conducted at the auction procedure becomes 5,829,16,000 won, or that it was difficult to view it as the plaintiff's obligation to purchase each of the lands of this case without considering changes in the market price at the time of purchase).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claims against the defendants of this case are all groundless, and they are dismissed.